<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2015 (2) TMI 484 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256484</link>
    <description>A party that fails to nominate its arbitrator within the contractual time cannot invoke Section 11(6) to seek court appointment of another arbitrator when the agreement itself stipulates that, on default, the invoking party&#039;s nominee will act as sole arbitrator. The court held that the defaulting petitioner could not rely on Section 4 or on cases involving the other side&#039;s failure to act, because the petitioner had not complied with the agreed appointment procedure, including any extended time it sought. The respondent&#039;s nomination of the sole arbitrator under the contract was therefore valid, and no further judicial appointment could be made.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Sat, 14 Feb 2015 11:22:50 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=376000" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2015 (2) TMI 484 - DELHI HIGH COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256484</link>
      <description>A party that fails to nominate its arbitrator within the contractual time cannot invoke Section 11(6) to seek court appointment of another arbitrator when the agreement itself stipulates that, on default, the invoking party&#039;s nominee will act as sole arbitrator. The court held that the defaulting petitioner could not rely on Section 4 or on cases involving the other side&#039;s failure to act, because the petitioner had not complied with the agreed appointment procedure, including any extended time it sought. The respondent&#039;s nomination of the sole arbitrator under the contract was therefore valid, and no further judicial appointment could be made.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Thu, 13 Nov 2014 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=256484</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>